IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6159/2017 BETWEEN:
Chethan B.J @ Chethu Aged about 22 years, S/o Jayaramu, R/at No.3, 2nd Cross, Kalidasa Layout, Sringara, Bengaluru – 560 050.
(By Sri.Aravind Reddy.H, Advocate) AND:
State by Karnataka K.G.Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 019.
Represented by SPP Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP) ... Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.52/2016 (S.C.No.986/2016) of Kempegowda Nagar Police Station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.52/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that one Nagaraja is the complainant wherein it is stated in respect of abuse of a small boy there was a quarrel between the deceased, injured Shantakumar and also the other accused persons. During the night, the accused No.1 asked the complainant to come to a particular place. Accordingly, the deceased along with the injured and also other friends went to said place.
There the accused persons came holding deadly weapons in their hands. They assaulted the deceased and also assaulted Shantakumar and caused injuries to him. On the basis of said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offences as against the petitioner / accused No.3 and other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused No.3 made a submission that looking to the charge sheet material, and also the injury certificate there is no prima facie case as against the present petitioner. It is also his submission that similar allegations were made as against accused No.4 also but accused No.4 has already been granted bail. The learned counsel submitted that now the investigation of the case is complete. Charge sheet is also filed. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner / accused No.3 may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and injured Shantkumar is the eye witness to the said incident wherein he has clearly stated about the presence of the petitioner along with deadly weapons at the spot and assault on the deceased as well as Shantakumar. It is also submitted, apart from the complaint there are other eye witnesses also CW 5, 6, 7 9 and 10. He also made submission that the present petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and there is also one more case against him for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and trial is going on in respect of the said crime. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to prosecution material collected during investigation and more particularly the statement of eye witness Bharath S/o Nagaraj who is also another eye witness, he has clearly stated about the overtact of the present petitioner and that he was holding deadly weapon in his hands. Apart from that, his friends, injured witness and Shantakumar also gave statement about the overtact made by the present petitioner. Not only that, as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the present petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and he is facing trial in other case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Looking to these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may involve in committing similar offence and that possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner / accused No.3 is in custody since from the date of his arrest prior to the year 2016. Therefore, the concerned Sessions Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE UN